PoliGAF 2016 |OT5| Archdemon Hillary Clinton vs. Lice Traffic Jam

Status
Not open for further replies.
damisa said:
As someone who actually works in Wall Street regulation, explain to me how banks are not regulated right now. What are they missing? Do you even know what regulation there is in place now? Have you ever heard of OATS or CATS?
Click to expand...
Sure. The FBI is severely understaffed compared to far smaller S&L crisis, and the regulators haven't been as aggressive either.

To produce more than 1,000 major felony convictions during the savings and loan debacle, the Office of Thrift Supervision made over 30,000 criminal referrals.

The damage from the recent Wall Street crisis was more than 70 times as large, but the agency made zero criminal referrals in it. Ditto the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve. The thrift agency's criminal referral coordinators were largely eliminated before the housing bubble burst.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...ulators-to-build-criminal-cases-against-banks

JesseEwiak said:
Yes, no one who has ever worked on Wall Street should ever work as a regulator ever. Because they're tainted forever.
Click to expand...
I never said anything specific about a revolving door but if you have an interesting point about it or want to debate against yourself I'll listen.

So you're going to charge people for things that were legal when they happened? Or use the FBI's scarce resources on 50/50 cases that might lead to millions being spent, only for no convictions because hey, Wall Street lawyers are pretty good.
Click to expand...
Two problems, the assumption that mortgage fraud is legal and also that the FBI, which we seem to agree is understaffed might lose. That's okay! Sometimes you lose. The problem there is with the lack of resources.
 
I think BIG banks don't collapse from regulation. They can bear the costs.

royalan said:
Haven't the banks paid back the loans given to them via the bailout?

EDIT: Oops, top of page. Buy Hard Choices, audio book bite available on Audible!
Click to expand...

Again, I think the BIG banks have. Lots of small banks that received tarp funds fell apart. TARP might be profitable overall but some investments did not work out. Still, on the whole, pretttttty good.

But I'm not like a lot of people who think there is a clear role for government and that is that. I'm fine with ends justifying the means as long as nobody ends up dead.
 
Y2Kev said:
I think BIG banks don't collapse from regulation. They can bear the costs.
Click to expand...

Of course, they'll be fine.

The question isn't whether banks can survive -- survival is not the benchmark. But regulation can restrict credit too much and have a significant negative impact on the economy.

I like the credit card rates example because it has very simple logic: If you put a cap on prices, you can't make the company sell to everyone that wants to buy said thing. Supplying to some people will cost more than the price cap, so they simply won't do it.

And the complexity of the whole matter is compounded by how credit is given and the risk diversified in the first place. Putting a cap on the price can increase moral hazard and adverse selection and make the pool of borrowers more risky.


shinra-bansho said:
Is arbitrarily reducing the size (on what metric wasn't clear either but I guess assets is the goto) of banking financial institutions (while ignoring non bank institutions) considered "regulation".
Click to expand...

Sure, anti-trust regulation often involves having companies divest in certain markets. See: The creation of the Baby Bells in 1984 after the breakup of AT&T.

Hardly a simple thing, though, especially without zero additional specifics.
 
Hey, maybe he can get all of them to run! Put Sasse on the ballot in Nebraska, Coburn in Oklahoma, Romney in Massachusetts, Michigan and Utah—and plug in other candidates as needed to maximize the Nevertrump appeal in particular states. John Kasich could run in Ohio, Jeb Bush in Florida and so forth.

OK, that’s a ridiculous idea, but it’s not as ridiculous as it sounds. It would obviate the problem of recruiting a candidate willing to spend an arduous six months on a quixotic national campaign. True, such a strategy would preclude the possibility of an electoral-college majority, but that’s not a realistic goal even with a single candidate.

The objective instead would be to win as many states as possible and deny either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton an Electoral College majority. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, that would throw the election to the House, which would choose the president from among the top three finishers—presumably Trump, Mrs. Clinton and one of the Nevertrump candidates.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


To be sure, it sounds a lot like Romney’s March plan for strategic Nevertrump voting in the primaries, or like the April Cruz-Kasich entente. But maybe the third time would be the charm.
Click to expand...
 
adam387 said:
I saw on CNN someone floated Brewer for Trump. Dear lord that's a terrifying ticket. Lawd.
Click to expand...
I was actually about to put some money down on good ol' Jan when I saw she didn't even have a market on predict-it. What gives!
shinra-bansho said:
Is arbitrarily reducing the size (on what metric wasn't clear either but I guess assets is the goto) of banking financial institutions (while ignoring non bank institutions) considered "regulation".
Click to expand...
Yes. It's called trust-busting.
 
Hillary would easily get 270+ electoral votes if Republicans did this.

Essentially their only hope is to just say fuck the primaries and nominate whoever they want at the convention. But that would require a degree of collective action that the GOP has shown itself to be completely incapable of taking, outside of McConnell's Senate coalition.
 
Kristoffer said:
I was actually about to put some money down on good ol' Jan when I saw she didn't even have a market on predict-it. What gives!
Click to expand...
The universe's sick sense of humor has some limits it seems.

Also that scenario benjji posted could end in a scenario where a candidate win the election with 33% of the vote. That would be a mess.
 
adam387 said:
Also that scenario bemji posted could end in a scenario where a candidate win the election with 33% of the vote. That would be a mess.
Click to expand...
It was good enough for John Q. Adams! (31%)

(Bill Clinton (43%), Richard Nixon (43%), Woodrow Wilson (42%), Abraham Lincoln (40%) all under 45%.)

Kristoffer said:
bemjipwms, stop trolling. You already posted how the Whigs tried this and failed!
Click to expand...
They didn't try it against two major parties though, just Martin Van Buren!

Imagine that the three finalists are like Hillary, Trump and Jeb (who only wins Florida). And then the Republican House votes for Jeb! JEBMENTIUM!
 
Y2Kev said:
Truly ridiculous. Trusts are monopolies definitionally.
Click to expand...

That's a far too precious reading of the word :p

The current understanding of the FTC regarding "antitrust" is the general regulation of concentrated markets at least as far back as the Sherman Act.
 
How is the investment banking space concentrated? There are far more players than telecom, cable, metals & mining, etc! It's BALOGNA spread by poors
 
IrishNinja said:
Late, but jesus wept, this was fantastic
Actually saw it making the rounds in tiwtter...congtars huelen, you can say dumb shit all over the net! And yeah, riding for minorities = bigoted, another classic observation there
Click to expand...

Wait, I'm twitter famous now? Links plz, I've arrived!
 
Y2Kev said:
How is the investment banking space concentrated? There are far more players than telecom, cable, metals & mining, etc! It's BALOGNA spread by poors
Click to expand...


It's not about the number of players in most of our measures -- although it plays a part -- but more about market shares.

Banking (of every kind) is not all that concentrated in the US, though. Around 40% for the top 5 is fine by all measures the FTC uses IIRC.

It's a distraction. Hell, even the question of too big to fail is a misnomer: It shouldn't be whether or not something is too big to fail, but too influent in the network to fail.
 
mo60 said:
Didn't some US poltical party try this strategy once in an election and it blew up in their face.Hilary will definitely get over 400 EV's if the republicans tried to do that.
Click to expand...
Box of Kittens said:
It's like the Whig strategy in 1836 with the added bonus that they'd still just be splitting the conservative vote with Trump and the result would be Clinton winning easily, possibly with 400+ EV's.
Click to expand...
The Whigs didn't "exist" yet fully as a national party (they were more just a grouping of all the groups who opposed Jackson for any reason than a fully defined party), so they just went with who the local parties had nominated (much like the Democratic-Republicans in 1824) until very late in the election when a number switched to William Henry Harrison. WHH finished second to MVB with 36.6% of the vote. So four years later, the Whigs ran him again against Van Buren by himself and he got 53% and won the Presidency and then died of pneumonia after giving a two hour inaugural speech in freezing rain without a coat, hat or umbrella.

Our greatest President.

And then John Tyler, a former and future Democrat became President. So I guess it did kinda blow up in their faces. Much like the people standing near the Peacemaker on the U.S.S. Princeton*.

In reality he didn't actually get sick for like a month later so it probably had nothing to do with his ridiculous speech giving.

*Too soon.

Y2Kev said:
Abraham Lincoln blows. He gave rise to the "party of lincoln" shit.
Click to expand...
Not to mention his War of Aggression against the South amirite.
 
benjipwns said:
It was good enough for John Q. Adams! (31%)

(Bill Clinton (43%), Richard Nixon (43%), Woodrow Wilson (42%), Abraham Lincoln (40%) all under 45%.)
Click to expand...

My favorite part about the Lincoln example is that even if all the votes against him had consolidated into a single ticket he still would have won the election because his votes were extremely efficiently distributed across states. It would be like if Mondale had somehow prevailed in the Electoral College.
 
Some lady asked two questions on the Clinton email scandal during Lynch's conference on HB2. lol journalists.
 
Hexa said:
That's not what most people mean when they argue for a flat tax though.
Click to expand...

Well, marginal value is pretty difficult for some people to understand.

The short version basically is:
Each dollar earned decreases in value, so all dollars earned should not be taxed the same.
 
I know the GOP/Trump have basically locked up Latino votes for Hillary this year, but I think someone like Tom Perez could go a long way for Latinos. I say this as a southern Latino who knows many down here who hate Trump but don't necessarily feel strongly toward Hillary.

Really, if played correctly, this election could lock up the growing Latino populations for the Democrats for the coming generations. Having two reliable demographic bases, in addition to appealing to the biggest growing demographic in a election against LatinoSatan isn't a bad idea. It's less short-term and more about playing the long game.

Just please god don't let it be Tim Kaine.
 
benjipwns said:
The Whigs didn't "exist" yet fully as a national party (they were more just a grouping of all the groups who opposed Jackson for any reason than a fully defined party), so they just went with who the local parties had nominated (much like the Democratic-Republicans in 1824) until very late in the election when a number switched to William Henry Harrison.
Click to expand...

That actually makes a lot of sense. The supposed strategy had never made sense to me, since sending the election to the outgoing House, dominated by Jackson supporters, seemed doomed to failure. Having it be more of an accident of the fluid party situation makes more sense. Though perhaps it could have been interesting given that, at least according to the count I checked, Jackson supporters controlled exactly 13 of 26 state delegates, with several split 50/50. Do you have a sense of what the Nullification Party representatives in South Carolina would have voted had there been a contingent election?

Either way, this suggested strategy would combine the worst features of 1836 and 1912, so it would be quite amusing to see the GOP establishment try, even though I know they won't.
 
I had a really great idea (well, i think it is) for a pokemon fighting game. It takes place in a 3d representation of kanto that exists in the timeline one year before red becomes champion in pokemon red/blue/green. (Imagine kanto redone in a 3d style like pokemon x/y.) The story is about Giovanni's rise to power and his corruption of kanto, and as you travel form town to town there are various problems stemming from his influence in each one, like pokemon poachers running amok in the safari zone that need to be beaten by the player character and are subsequently apprehended by officer jenny. You can also challenge the gym leaders and the elite four as a side quest, but they will have pokemon with unique attacks and powers that will be extremely difficult to be beaten. (brock's onix will have 75% increased resistance to physical attacks, lieutenant surge's raichu has a double team that chains into a devastating thunder, etc.) It will be a real challenge to defeat them. The battle system takes place in a 3d environment like pokken but each pokemon will move according to their weight. A blastoise will not be as lithe and agile as a rattatta, for instance. The fights play out almost like a 3d representation of the megaman battle network series, sans tile based movement; every turn the trainer will select from a menu of moves the pokemon has learned, and choose four. For the next 30 seconds the pokemon can attack each other with the four moves they selected, but each can only be used once. This allows for a merge of freedom of movement while retaining the tactical nature of gameplay that pokemon has always been known for. After thirty seconds the menu will pause the battle for both trainers to select fresh attacks, and the battle will proceed until one pokemon depletes the other's hit points.

One day when I am rich I will go to redmond and put a briefcase filled with millions on reggie's desk and say to him, "Tell your japanese masters I want to fund the development of this pokemon game"
 
You'd have better luck getting Bernie to do a speech for Goldman Sachs than getting Nintendo to accept money for a AAA pokemon game that would sell millions
 
Box of Kittens said:
My favorite part about the Lincoln example is that even if all the votes against him had consolidated into a single ticket he still would have won the election because his votes were extremely efficiently distributed across states. It would be like if Mondale had somehow prevailed in the Electoral College.
Click to expand...
One reason for the lopsidedness was that Lincoln (and Fremont the election before) wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern States.
800px-RepublicanPresidentialCounty1860Colorbrewer.gif


He actually was on the ballot in Virginia, but you almost wouldn't know it from this map lol

Box of Kittens said:
That actually makes a lot of sense. The supposed strategy had never made sense to me, since sending the election to the outgoing House, dominated by Jackson supporters, seemed doomed to failure. Having it be more of an accident of the fluid party situation makes more sense. Though perhaps it could have been interesting given that, at least according to the count I checked, Jackson supporters controlled exactly 13 of 26 state delegates, with several split 50/50. Do you have a sense of what the Nullification Party representatives in South Carolina would have voted had there been a contingent election?

Either way, this suggested strategy would combine the worst features of 1836 and 1912, so it would be quite amusing to see the GOP establishment try, even though I know they won't.
Click to expand...
Nullifiers were anti-Jackson Democrats. Formed by his first VP John C. Calhoun.

I'm unsure of how they would have voted though Harrison was a slave owner and Van Buren was a Northerner and eventually went Free Soil as some in the South had predicted years earlier.

The third place candidate Hugh White was actually more pro-Jackson policy wise despite being a Whig, he just hated the guy personally like most people. Also was pro-slavery.

The Senate did wind up selecting the VP in 1836 because Virginia's electors en-masse didn't vote for Richard M. Johnson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country
386 387 388 389 390
19K
2M
Magni replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
The Technomancer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting
393 394 395 396 397
20K
1M
sc0la replied
Top Bottom